This paper presents an experiment designed to test the claim that developmental differences in narrative appeal can be better understood by using logic from a recently proposed dual-process model of narrative entertainment. The dual-process model suggests that distinct, basic motivations compose an intuitive system of narrative appraisal, in which judgments of narrative characters and outcomes befalling these characters are generally fast and automatic. The model suggests that when motivations are in conflict, if one of these motivations is satisfied at the cost of violating or leaving another unsatisfied then a slower, deliberative appraisal becomes necessary to gauge motivational incongruity. The paper presents more recent understandings in cognitive development suggesting that a mature deliberative system is necessary to reliably gauge incongruity between motivations. The paper contrasts this explanation with previous accounts of developmental differences in narrative appeal offered by Zillmann and colleagues. It then presents an experiment exposing children of two age groups to a narrative that varies both the salience of competing moral concerns and the severity of retribution toward an antagonist in an attempt to replicate and extend earlier work on narrative enjoyment by Zillmann and colleagues. Results of the experiment support the conclusion that whereas older children deliberate on incongruity, impacting their appraisals, younger children do not reliably weigh incongruity in their appraisals. Discussion centers on how the results lend credence to the dual-process account, as well as how incongruity between conflicting motivations may play a common role in other phenomena relevant to entertainment theory.
Read
